Re: Number of columns and performance
- From: "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:37:46 GMT
"Nacho" <nacho.jorge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1177509485.676313.103910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
I'm designing a new database and I have a doubt in which surely you
can help me.
I'm storing in this database historical data of some measurements and
the system in constantly growing, new measurements are added every
day.
So, I have to set some extra columns in advance, so space is available
whenever is needed and the client doesn't have to modify the structure
in SQL server.
Umm... I don't see why you have to do this now.
Do it later.
I mean will you even know the type or size of the columns now?
And how will you even give them meaningful names when they have none now.
The question is: the more columns I add "just in case", the slower the
SQL reads the table?
Of course the "empty" columns are not included in any query until they
have some valid data inside.
Will I have better performance if I configure only the columns being
used at the moment, without any empty columns?
A tad (since there's a small metadate overhead on the leave nodes).
But more importantly, you'll have a messy schema on your hands. I'd wait to
add them.
Thanks in advance.
Ignacio
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
.
- References:
- Number of columns and performance
- From: Nacho
- Number of columns and performance
- Prev by Date: Populate a Table with Stored Proc.
- Next by Date: Re: sql script
- Previous by thread: Number of columns and performance
- Next by thread: Re: Number of columns and performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
